Frederik Kortlandt – Leiden University – www.kortlandt.nl
HITTITE hi-VERBS AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN PERFECT
FREDERIK KORTLANDT
In an earlier study (1983) I argued that unlike aorists and athematic presents, IndoEuropean perfects and thematic presents originally had a dative subject, as in German mir träumt ‘me dreams’ for ich träume ‘I dream’, e.g. Greek oĩda ‘I know’ < ‘it
is known to me’, édomai ‘I will eat’ < ‘it is eatable to me’. On the basis of Oettinger’s
epoch-making book (1979), I proposed that the Hittite hi-flexion originated from a
merger of the perfect, where *-i was added to 3rd sg. *-e in order to supply a new
present, with the thematic flexion of causatives and iteratives, where the final *-e of
3rd sg. *-eie was dropped before the loss of intervocalic *-i- (1983: 315). This view
must now be reconsidered against the background of Kloekhorst’s dissertation
(2007), which marks another turning-point in the history of Hittite studies. For
convenience’s sake I shall write h, j, w for ḫ, , u̯ and *q for any Indo-European laryngeal.
Kloekhorst has demonstrated that apart from the factitives in -ahh-, Hittite hiverbs show an alternation between *-o- in the singular and zero in the plural both
in the root of underived stems and in the suffix of derived stems, e.g. au-, u- <
*q(o)u- ‘to see’, āk-, akk- < *q(o)k- ‘to die’, ārr-, arr- < *q(o)rq- ‘to wash’, ištāp-,
ištapp- < *st(o)p- ‘to shut’, tarna-, tarn- < *trk-n(o)q- ‘to let go’, hamank-,
hame/ink- < *qm(o)-n-gh- ‘to tie’, dai-, ti- < *dhq-(o)i- ‘to put’, pai-, pi- < *qp-(o)i‘to give’, mēma-, mēmi- < *me-m(o)i- ‘to speak’, lilhuwa-, lilhui- < *li-lqu-(o)i- ‘to
pour’. It follows that all of these must be derived from Indo-European perfects.
Note that Kloekhorst has conclusively refuted Jasanoff’s ill-conceived theory
(2003), which can now safely be discarded.
Two questions remain: how did the Hittite hi-verbs develop semantically from
original perfects, and where do the causatives and iteratives fit in with the new reconstruction? Here I would like to call attention to an important but largely forgotten article by Herman Kølln (1968), who points to the threefold opposition between Greek apothnḗiskō ‘struggle with death’, apéthanon ‘passed away’, and
téthnēka ‘am dead’, which represent three successive stages of a single event. The
same threefold opposition is found in Czech, e.g. imperfective klekat, perfective
kleknout ‘to kneel down’, stative (resultative) klečet ‘to be on one’s knees’, also sedat
(si), sednout (si) ‘to sit down’, sedět ‘to sit’, lehat (si), lehnout (si) ‘to lie down’, ležet
‘to lie’, blýskat (se), blýsknout (se) ‘to flash’, blyštět se ‘to shine’, zmlkat, zmlknout ‘to
fall silent’, mlčet ‘to keep silent’, vstávat, vstát ‘to get up’, stát ‘to stand’. Similar trip-
2
FREDERIK KORTLANDT
lets are found in the other Slavic languages. The Slavic stative verbs in -ěti such as
Czech klečet ‘to kneel’, vidět ‘to see’, držet ‘to hold’ correspond to the Greek perfect,
denoting an event where the non-agentive subject has no effect on an outside object.
When there is no stative verb, the imperfective member of an aspectual pair
may take its place, e.g. opíral se o strom ‘er lehnte sich an den Baum zurück’ or ‘er
sass an den Baum zurückgelehnt’, obklopovali svého přítele ‘sie stellten sich in einem Kreis um ihren Freund’ or ‘sie standen in einem Kreis um ihren Freund’,
skrýval peníze ve skříni ‘er versteckte das Geld im Schrank’ or ‘er hielt das Geld im
Schrank verborgen’, hosté zaujímali svá místa ‘die Gäste nahmen ihre Plätze ein’ or
‘die Gäste sassen auf ihren Plätzen’ (Kølln 1968: 133). Similar instances can be
found in Polish, e.g. Jan rozchyla drzwi ‘John sets or is keeping the door ajar’, Jan
obejmuje Marię wpół ‘John puts or is holding his arm around Mary’s waist’, Jan
wyciąga rękę ‘John stretches out his arm or is holding his arm stretched out’, Jan się
nachyla ‘John leans forward or is leaning forward’ (Proeme 1980: 312), and in Russian, e.g. sneg pokryvaet kryši ‘snow covers the roofs’, which may refer either to the
process or to the resulting state.
While the Slavic stative verbs in -ěti generally correspond semantically to the
Greek perfect, this is not always the case. Kølln calls attention to Czech pučet ‘to
swell, to bud, to sprout’, which denotes a development leading up to the event of
pukat ‘to become cracked, to break (into leaf)’, perfective puknout. Here pučet describes the stage preceding pukat and puknout, whereas klečet describes the stage
following klekat and kleknout. Other stative verbs denote continuous sound or
movement, e.g. pištět ‘to whistle, to pipe’ beside pískat and písknout which depict
the course of action and its conclusion, e.g. neslyšels že jsem na tebe pískal (ipf.)
‘hast du nicht gehört, dass ich dir pfiff (einmal oder mehrmals)’ and pískl (pf.) jsem
jen jednou, ale i kdybych pískl (pf.) víckrát, asi bys to neslyšel ‘ich pfiff nur einmal,
aber hätte ich mehrmals gepfiffen, hättest du es wohl auch nicht gehört’ (Kølln
1968: 136). Here the stative verb pištět does not denote another stage in the development of the action but expresses its continuousness. Similarly, the Greek perfect
kéklēga ‘scream continually’ denotes incessant action, as opposed to the aorist éklagksa ‘let out a scream’.
Stative verbs in -ěti like Czech klečet, pučet and pištět are intransitive and denote
either inactivity or continuous action. Other stative verbs in -ěti lack an aspectual
pair denoting the same event, e.g. bolet ‘to ache’, šumět ‘to make a noise’, or at least
its perfective member, e.g. letět ‘to fly’, běžet ‘to run’. A few of them have developed
into regular imperfective verbs, e.g. hořet ‘to burn’, cf. zahořet ‘to catch fire’, shořet
‘to burn down’, and křičet ‘to shout’, which generally describes constant screaming
but may also refer to a single cry. All of these are intransitive, e.g. letět, hořet, křičet,
or at least denote an event where the non-agentive subject has no effect on an outside object, e.g. držet ‘to hold’, vidět ‘to see’, slyšet ‘to hear’. The only exception
Kølln mentions is vrtět máslo ‘Butter schlagen, to churn’, which must be recent in
HITTITE hi-VERBS AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN PERFECT
3
view of the usual construction with an instrumental object in vrtět hlavou ‘to shake
one’s head’, vrtět ocasem ‘to wag one’s tail’. This development of stative verbs into
regular imperfectives and subsequently into transitive verbs offers a model for the
development of the Indo-European perfect in Hittite. As Kølln put it in an earlier
article (1966: 75): “Vom historischen Gesichtspunkt aus kann dieser Befund so interpretiert werden, dass gewisse Deverbativa, die ursprünglich nur das Zuständliche ausdrückten, ihren Anwendungsbereich allmählich erweiterten und sich auch
das imperfektive Bedeutungsgebiet unterworfen haben.”
Turning now to the Hittite material, we may wonder if the hi-verbs can semantically be derived from Indo-European perfects along the lines indicated by Kølln
for the Slavic stative verbs in -ěti such as Czech klečet, pučet, pištět, bolet, šumět,
letět, běžet, hořet, křičet, vidět, držet, vrtět. An important point which must be taken
into account is the syntactic change from dative subject to nominative subject,
which may have occurred as early as the Anatolian exodus from the IndoEuropean homeland in the Ukraine and given rise to transitive usage, as in Czech
vidět, držet, vrtět. This development can be illustrated with the following example
from Georgian (cf. Tschenkéli 1958: 488):
kurdi gaep’ara p’olicielebs ‘the thief (nom.) escaped the policemen (dat.)’,
p’olicielebs gaep’arat kurdi ‘idem’,
where the added plural marker -t in the second variant is coreferential with the dative subject, the hapless policemen. The substitution of the nominative for the dative subject, as in German er träumte for ihm träumte ‘he dreamt’, might yield the
meaning ‘the policemen let the thief escape’, which could easily develop into a
causative. This offers an explanation for the development of the Hittite hi-flexion.
The following analysis is entirely based on the data presented by Kloekhorst in his
dissertation (2007). I shall first leave suffixed and reduplicated formations and
compounds out of consideration here.
1. āk-, akk- ‘to die, to be killed, to be eclipsed (of sun and moon)’. Note that ‘to be
eclipsed’ like ‘to obscure, to conceal, to hide’ may refer either to the process or
to the resulting state, as in Czech skrýval (peníze ve skříni) ‘hid’ or ‘kept hidden’
cited above.
2. ār-, ar- ‘to come (to), to arrive (at)’. The cognates Gr. érkhomai and Skt. ṛccháti
with the imperfective suffix *-ske/o- relate to the Hittite verb like the Czech atelic imperfectives létat and běhat to the original statives denoting continuous
movement letět ‘to fly’ and běžet ‘to run’.
3. ārr-, arr- ‘to wash’, Toch. A yär- ‘to bathe’ is a typical verb denoting continuous
action.
4. ārk-, ark- ‘to mount, to copulate’ denotes continuous action.
5. au-, u- ‘to see, to look’. This verb is immediately comparable to Czech vidět ‘to
see’.
4
FREDERIK KORTLANDT
6. hān-, han- ‘to draw (liquids)’ denotes continuous action.
7. harra-, harr- ‘to grind, to splinter up (wood), to crush (bread)’, Gr. aróō
‘plough’. This verb denotes continuous action.
8. hāš-, hašš- ‘to give birth (to), to beget, to procreate’ is reminiscent of Czech
pučet ‘to swell, to bud, to sprout’, which describes the state preceding the event
of pukat ‘to break (into leaf), to become cracked’.
9. hāt-, hat- ‘to dry up, to become parched’, Gr. ázō. This verb denotes continuous change.
10. hatk- ‘to shut, to close’, Gr. ákhthomai ‘be burdened, be depressed’. Like ‘to
hide’ and ‘to cover’, the Hittite verb can easily encompass both the process and
the resulting state, like Polish rozchyla ‘sets ajar’ or ‘is keeping ajar’, obejmuje
‘puts around’ or ‘is holding around’, wyciąga ‘stretches out’ or ‘is holding
stretched out’ cited above, or may be a causative (see below).
11. huwapp-, hupp- ‘to be hostile towards, to do evil against, to hurl, to throw’, Skt.
vap- ‘to strew, to scatter’. This verb denotes continuous action.
12. huwart-, hurt- ‘to curse’ denotes incessant action and may refer both to the
process and to the resulting state.
13. iškalla-, iškall- ‘to slit, to split, to tear’, Gr. skéllō ‘hoe’. This verb denotes continuous action or may be a causative.
14. išpār-, išpar- ‘to spread (out), to strew’, Gr. speírō. This verb denotes continuous action.
15. išparra-, išparr- ‘to trample’ denotes continuous action.
16. lā-, l- ‘to loosen, to release, to untie, to relieve’, Gothic letan. The action entails
a resulting state where the subject has no effect on the outside object.
17. malla-, mall- ‘to mill, to grind’ denotes continuous action.
18. mālk-, malk- ‘to spin’ denotes continuous action.
19. māld-, mald- ‘to recite, to make a vow’ denotes continuous action.
20. mau-, mu- ‘to fall’, Latin moveō ‘move’. This verb denotes continuous movement, cf. Czech letět ‘to fly’.
21. nāh-, nahh- ‘to fear, to be(come) afraid, to be respectful, to be careful’. This is a
typical perfect.
22. nai-, ni- ‘to turn, to send’, Skt. nay- ‘to lead’. This verb is immediately comparable to Czech vrtět ‘to turn’.
23. para-, par- ‘to appear, to emerge’ may refer either to the process or to the resulting state.
24. pāšk-, pašk- ‘to stick in, to fasten, to plant, to set up’, which appears to contain a
suffix *-sk-, does not conform to the semantic pattern discussed here and may
be a causative (see below).
25. padda-, padd- ‘to dig (the ground)’, Latin fodiō. This verb denotes continuous
action.
HITTITE hi-VERBS AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN PERFECT
5
26. šāh- ‘to clog, to stuff, to fill in, to plug up’, Toch. B soy- ‘be satisfied’. This verb
denotes continuous action or may be a causative. It is reminiscent of Czech
pučet ‘to swell, to bud, to sprout’.
27. šākk-, šakk- ‘to know (about), to experience, to recognize, to remember’, Latin
sciō. This is a typical perfect.
28. šārr-, šarr- ‘to divide up, to distribute, to split, to separate’ denotes continuous
action or may be a causative.
29. šarta-, šart- ‘to wipe, to rub’ denotes continuous action.
30. šuhha-, šuhh- ‘to scatter’, Gr. húō ‘to rain’. This verb denotes continuous action.
31. dā-, d- ‘to take, to wed, to decide’, Skt. dádāti, Gr. dídōmi. The compounds
uda-, ud- ‘to bring (here)’ and peda-, ped- ‘to take (somewhere), to carry, to
transport, to spend (time)’ suggest continuous movement, like Czech běžet ‘to
run’, cf. also ūnna-, ūnni- ‘to send (here), to drive (here)’ and penna-, penni- ‘to
drive (there)’ belonging with #22 above. The verb may be identified with Finnish tuo- ‘bring’, Hung. toj- < Proto-Uralic *toqi- (cf. Kortlandt 1989: 82 and
2002: 220, Sammallahti 1988: 550), which has evidently preserved the original
meaning of continuous movement.
32. wai-, wi- ‘to cry (out)’ is immediately comparable to Czech křičet ‘to shout’.
33. wāk-, wakk- ‘to bite’, Gr. ágnūmi ‘break’, Toch. AB wāk- ‘split, burst’. This verb
suggests continuous action but may be a causative.
34. wašta-, wašt- ‘to sin, to offend’ may be compared to #12 above, denoting incessant action.
35. zāh-, zahh- ‘to hit, to beat’ denotes continuous action or may be a causative.
Oettinger classifies the following verbs as original causatives and iteratives to be
compared with the Sanskrit presents in -áya- (1979: 414-430). Here again I give
Kloekhorst’s translations. The rise of the causative can be attributed to the substitution of a nominative for a dative subject as illustrated with the Georgian example
cited above.
36. ārk-, ark- ‘to cut off, to divide’, Latin (h)ercīscō ‘to divide (an estate)’.
37. iškār-, iškar- ‘to sting, to stab, to pierce’, Gr. keírō ‘cut (off)’.
38. išpānt-, išpant- ‘to libate, to pour, to sacrifice’, Gr. spéndō, Latin spondeō
‘pledge, promise’.
39. ištāp-, ištapp- ‘to plug up, to block, to enclose, to shut’, cf. #10 and #26 above.
40. kānk-, kank- ‘to hang, to weigh’, Gothic hahan.
41. karāp-, kare/ip- ‘to devour, to consume’, Skt. grabh- ‘to seize’. This verb may
actually denote continuous action, like Czech horět ‘to burn’.
42. lāhu-, lahu- ‘to pour, to cast (objects from metal), to (over)flow’. The intransitive meaning suggests continuous movement, like Czech běžet ‘to run’.
6
FREDERIK KORTLANDT
43. lāk-, lak- ‘to knock out (a tooth), to turn (one’s ears or eyes towards), to train (a
vine)’, Gothic lagjan ‘to lay down’. This verb looks like a typical causative.
44. mārk-, mark- ‘to divide, to separate, to distribute, to cut up’ may be compared
to #28 and to #36.
45. šarāp-, šare/ip- ‘to sip’, Latin sorbeō.
46. dākk-, dakk- ‘to resemble’, Gr. dokeĩ ‘seems’.
47. warš- ‘to reap, to harvest, to wipe’, Old Latin vorrō ‘wipe’, but cf. #29 above.
48. wāš- ‘to buy’, Latin vēnum dare ‘to sell’.
Unlike the other Indo-European languages, Anatolian evidently created perfects
from (imperfective) nasal presents and (perfective) sigmatic aorists:
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
tarna-, tarn- ‘to let go, to allow, to leave’ < *trk-n(o)q-.
šunna-, šunn- ‘to fill’ < *su-n(o)q-.
šanna-, šann- ‘to hide, to conceal’ < *sn-n(o)q-.
hamank-, hame/ink- ‘to tie, to betroth’ < *qm(o)ngh-.
kalank- ‘to soothe, to satiate, to satisfy’ < *gl(o)ngh-.
ānš- ‘to wipe’ < *qomq-s-, Gr. amáō ‘mow, reap’.
hārš- ‘to till (the soil)’ < *qorq-s-, Gr. aróō ‘plough’, cf. #7 above.
maz- ‘to withstand, to resist’ < *m(o)qdh-s-.
pahš- ‘to protect, to guard, to defend’ < *p(o)q-s-, Latin pāscō, pāvī ‘graze’.
pāš-, paš- ‘to swallow’ < *p(o)q-s-, Gr. pnō ‘drink’.
The most frequent suffix of derived perfects in Hittite is *-(o)i-, which apparently
contributed a sense of directionality and which may (or may not) be identical with
Proto-Uralic *-j- found in inchoative, terminative, passive, frequentative and continuative verbs (cf. Collinder 1960: 275).
59. āppa-, āppi- ‘to be finished, to be done’ is a typical perfect.
60. arai-, ari- ‘to arise, to lift, to raise’, Latin orior. This verb denotes directed
movement, cf. Czech běžet ‘to run’.
61. halai-, hali- ‘to set in motion’, Gr. iállō ‘send off’. This verb also suggests directed movement, cf. #43 above.
62. halzai-, halzi- ‘to cry out, to shout, to invoke, to recite’, Gothic laþon. This verb
is comparable to Czech pištět ‘to whistle’ and křičet ‘to shout’.
63. huwai-, hui- ‘to run, to hurry, to spread (of vegetation)’, Skt. vti ‘to blow (of
wind)’. This verb is comparable to Czech běžet ‘to run’.
64. išhai-, išhi- ‘to bind, to wrap, to obligate with, to impose upon’, Skt. sā-, si-, perfect siṣya. This verb may be compared to Czech držet ‘to hold’.
65. išhamai-, išhami- ‘to sing’ may be compared to Czech pištět ‘to whistle’.
66. išhuwai-, išhui- ‘to throw, to scatter, to pour’, Gr. húō ‘to rain’, cf. #38 and #42
above.
HITTITE hi-VERBS AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN PERFECT
7
67. išpai-, išpi- ‘to get full, to be satiated’, Skt. sphā(ya)- ‘to become fat, to increase’.
This verb is reminiscent of Czech pučet ‘to swell, to bud, to sprout’.
68. mai-, mi- ‘to grow (up), to thrive, to prosper, to be born’ is again reminiscent of
Czech pučet, cf. #8 above.
69. pai-, pi- ‘to give, to pay, to grant, to hand over’, which is cognate with Hitt.
epp-, app- ‘to take, to seize’, Skt. āpnóti ‘to reach, to gain, to obtain’, Latin apīscor ‘reach, get’ (cf. also Kloekhorst 2006). This verb is of the type exemplified
by Czech (hosté) zaujímali (svá místa), ‘(the guests) took (their places)’ or
‘were sitting’, where English sat covers both variants. The meaning ‘to give’
evidently developed from ‘to take there/somewhere’, cf. #31 above. Note that
the Sanskrit and Latin verbs are derived imperfectives from the Hittite formations epp- and pai-, respectively (cf. Kortlandt 2007: 136).
70. parai-, pari- ‘to blow (a horn), to blow on (a fire), to blow up’, Gr. pímprēmi.
This verb may be compared to Czech pištět ‘to whistle’.
71. pattai-, patti- ‘to run, to race, to flee, to fly’, Skt. pátati, Gr. pétomai. This verb is
comparable to Czech běžet ‘to run’ and letět ‘to fly’.
72. šai-, ši- ‘to impress, to seal, to sting, to shoot, to throw’, Latin serō, Gothic saian
‘to sow’. This verb denotes directed action and is reminiscent of Czech vrtět ‘to
turn, to shake, to churn’.
73. dai-, ti- ‘to lay, to put, to place’ < *dhq-(o)i- denotes directed action, cf. also #31
and #69 above.
74. tarai-, tari- ‘to exert oneself, to become tired’ denotes directed action and is
reminiscent of Czech běžet ‘to run’.
75. zai-, zi- ‘to cross (over)’, Skt. at- ‘to wander, to roam’. The Hittite verb denotes
directed movement, like Czech běžet ‘to run’.
Reduplication appears to have added intensive meaning, but the number of examples is limited. There are three verbs which look like Indo-European reduplicated
perfects and aorists, all of which are formally and semantically comparable to Skt.
uvca, vavca, ávocat ‘spoke’ < *we-w(o)kw-.
76. mēma-, mēmi- ‘to speak, to recite, to tell’ < *me-m(o)i-, perhaps cognate with
Skt. minóti ‘to establish’.
77. wewakk- ‘to demand, to ask’ < *we-wok-, which is cognate with wekk- ‘to wish,
to desire, to ask for’, Skt. vaś-.
78. hanna-, hann- ‘to sue, to judge’ < *qe-qn(o)q-, cognate with Gr. ónomai
‘blame’.
There are eight verbs with -i- in the reduplication syllable, which suggests that they
were derived from reduplicated presents like Skt. vívakti ‘speaks’:
8
FREDERIK KORTLANDT
79. halihla-, halihli- ‘to genuflect, to make obeisance to’ < *qli-ql(o)i-, which is
cognate with halije/a- ‘to kneel down’ and probably with #61 halai-, hali- ‘to set
in motion’, cf. Czech klečet, klekat cited above.
80. lilhuwa-, lilhui- ‘to pour’ < *li-lqu(o)i-, which is cognate with #42 lāhu-, lahu-,
also lilahu- ‘to pour’.
81. mimma-, mimm- ‘to refuse, to reject’ < *mi-m(o)q-.
82. parip(p)ara-, parip(p)ari- ‘to blow a horn’ < *pri-prq(o)i- is a derivative of #70
parai-, pari-, also papra-, papri- ‘to blow’, Gr. pímprēmi.
83. pippa-, pipp- ‘to knock down, to tear down, to destroy, to throw up’ <
*pi-p(o)q- may be cognate with #58 pāš-, paš- ‘to swallow’ (cf. ‘the earth swallowed them up’).
84. šišha-, šišh- ‘to decide, to appoint’ < *si-sq(o)i- is cognate with #64 išhai-, išhi‘to bind’, Skt. sā-, si-.
85. titta-, titti- ‘to install, to assign’ < *dhi-dhq(o)i- is cognate with #73 dai-, ti-, also
tāišta-, tāišti- ‘to load’ < *dhoqes-dhq(o)i-, Gr. títhēmi.
86. wiwa-, wiwi- ‘to cry’ < *wi-w(o)i- is cognate with #32 wai-, wi-.
Both the combined presence of i-reduplication and i-suffixation in most of these
verbs and their coexistence with simpler formations show that this was a productive type in pre-Hittite. The derivation of hi-verbs from nasal presents and sigmatic
aorists points in the same direction. We may therefore conclude that the exclusive
derivation of perfects from the root attested in the other Indo-European languages
represents a more archaic state of affairs. After the loss of the dative subject construction, the hi-flexion evidently became a device to supply imperfective verbs in
the way envisaged by Kølln as formulated in the quotation above. Since the Slavic
verbs in -ěti clearly represent the Indo-European perfect, we may wonder if the
same holds for the verbs in -iti. Both verb classes have an i-present reflecting an
athematic flexion type with full grade *-ei- in the singular and zero grade *-i- in the
plural (cf. Kortlandt 1979: 61 and 1987: 107). This type can be identified with the
flexion of Latin capiō ‘take’ (cf. Kortlandt 2007: 134), Gothic hafjan ‘to raise’. It has
a twofold origin. On the one hand, the derivation of Hittite hi-verbs from reduplicated and nasal presents suggests that hi-verbs with the suffix *-(o)i- may similarly
have been derived from athematic i-presents. On the other hand, the intransitive
Slavic verbs in -ěti clearly correspond to an original perfect, which can now be
identified with the Hittite hi-verbs in *-(o)i-. It follows that the latter formation
must be reconstructed for the Indo-European proto-language. It is reflected in Skt.
kupya- ‘be angry’, tuṣya- ‘be content’, tṛ́ṣya- ‘be thirsty’, dṛ́hya- ‘be firm’, búdhya‘be awake’, mánya- ‘think’, yúdhya- ‘fight’, lúbhya- ‘be confused’, hṛṣya- ‘be exited’,
Gr. maínomai ‘be furious’, phaínomai ‘appear’, khaírō ‘rejoice’, Latin cupiō ‘desire’,
fugiō ‘flee’, patior ‘suffer’, Old Irish do-moinethar ‘think’.
What happened to the original athematic i-presents? Latin faciō ‘make’ and iaciō ‘throw’ show that the type must have been productive at an early stage. At that
HITTITE hi-VERBS AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN PERFECT
9
time, the stem-final vowel of the thematic flexion appears to have been an object
marker (cf. Kortlandt 1983). Traditional Sanskrit grammar distinguishes between
1st class presents with an accented full grade root and unaccented thematic -a-,
which are historically identical with the subjunctives of athematic verbs (cf. Renou
1932), 4th class presents with a mostly accented zero grade root and the suffix -ya-,
6th class presents with an unaccented zero grade root and accented thematic -á-,
e.g. tudáti ‘to thrust’, which are characteristically accompanied by an implicit or
explicit totally affected definite object experiencing a change of state as a result of
the action (cf. Renou 1925), and 10th class presents, especially causatives with an
original o-grade root and the accented suffix -áya-. The 1st class can be explained
from the original syntax with a dative subject and a nominative object (cf. Kortlandt 1983: 319). The 4th class can now be identified with the original perfect in
*-(o)i- reflected in the Hittite material. The 6th class represents an original transitive construction with an ergative subject and a nominative object. The 10th class
causatives combine the o-grade of the Hittite simple hi-verbs with the full grade
suffix *-ei- expected in the objective (= thematic) flexion of the athematic ipresents. If this suffix contributed a sense of directionality and the thematic flexion
reflects its transitivization, their combination is an appropriate device to derive
causatives from o-grade perfects.
There is no evidence for Anatolian formations corresponding to the Sanskrit 1st
and 10th class presents (or thematic subjunctives of athematic verbs) with an accented e-grade in the root or the suffix preceding the thematic vowel. I therefore
think that these formations originated after the exodus of the Anatolians from the
Indo-European homeland in the Ukraine. At that time, the thematic vowel was
evidently added to a stem with zero grades only. It follows that the original objective flexion of athematic i-presents should appear as Sanskrit 6th class presents
with the accented suffix -yá-. This is the type syáti ‘to bind’ recently discussed by
Kulikov (2000, cf. also 2001: 493-508). While the ergative construction was lost in
Proto-Indo-European times already, giving rise to the sigmatic nominative and to
thematic nouns with a nominative in *-os and an accusative in *-om (cf. Beekes
1985: 172-195), the dative construction evidently persisted until after the rise of the
thematic subjunctive in the non-Anatolian languages. After the loss of the ergative
construction, the accented suffix *-ie/o- could easily spread as a suitable device to
derive imperfective presents, primarily of transitive verbs. The introduction of full
grade stems before the thematic vowel (or the addition of the thematic vowel to full
grade stems) now differentiated the original thematic present flexion with a dative
subject from the new thematic present flexion with a nominative subject in the
non-Anatolian languages, e.g. Skt. dáya- ‘distribute’ beside dyá- ‘cut’ (cf. Kulikov
2000: 277f.). The new suffix *-eie/o- then spread to o-grade perfects before the substitution of a nominative for a dative subject which gave rise to 10th class causatives
as illustrated with the Georgian example cited above.
10
FREDERIK KORTLANDT
The remaining question is: what happened to the athematic i-presents and to
the simple thematic flexion (Sanskrit 6th class presents) in Anatolian? While the
former can easily have been thematicized and appear as mi-verbs in Hittite, the
latter seem to correspond to the causative hi-verbs. When the dative subject construction was lost at an early stage in Anatolian, the nominative construction
which had replaced the pre-Indo-European ergative construction with transitive
thematic verbs was semantically closer to the perfect than to the formally similar
suffixed thematic presents, cf. Skt. ávocat ‘spoke’ < ‘he uttered the word’ beside
uvca, vavca ‘spoke’ < ‘the word escaped him’. At this stage, the hi-flexion may
have replaced the simple thematic flexion in pre-Hittite. The original type may
have been preserved as a distinct class of hi-verbs in the non-ablauting factitives in
-ahh- < *-eqe/o-, e.g. happinahhahhi ‘I enrich’, which were replaced by verbs in
*-eqie/o- in the non-Anatolian languages.
Summarizing we arrive at the following picture. The elimination of the preIndo-European ergative construction was a common development of the IndoEuropean languages which gave rise to sigmatic nominatives and to the new category of nominal o-stems. As a result, thematic verb forms now had a nominative
subject and an accusative object (as did athematic verb forms) if the verb was transitive but an indirect object which could be reanalyzed as a dative subject if the
verb was intransitive (as was also the case in the perfect). This ambiguity gave rise
to middle paradigms, which supplied intransitive verb forms to transitive verbs.
The creation of derived perfects from athematic i-presents also belongs to the
Indo-European proto-language, but the derivation of perfects from reduplicated
and nasal presents and sigmatic aorists was evidently limited to the Anatolian
branch. When the nominative replaced the dative subject of perfects and thematic
presents in Anatolian, the older transitive thematic verbs (corresponding to the
Sanskrit 6th class presents) adopted the endings of the perfect, giving rise to the hiflexion. On the basis of both athematic presents and perfects, the non-Anatolian
languages created a new class of indeterminate presents with a dative subject, a full
grade stem and thematic endings, which developed into the Sanskrit 1st and 10th
class presents and the subjunctive of athematic presents. When the nominative replaced the dative subject in these languages, the indeterminate presents which were
derived from o-grade perfects developed into causatives and iteratives in the way
discussed above. The central Indo-European languages (at least Indo-Iranian and
Greek, but not Italo-Celtic, cf. Kortlandt 2007: 151-154) finally created a subjunctive
of thematic presents by inserting another thematic vowel before the endings.
A final question is: where did the various stem formatives come from? As I have
indicated elsewhere (2002: 219), I think that nominalizing *-i-, *-m-, *-s-, participial
*-l-, *-n-, *-t-, *-nt- and conative *-sk- are of Indo-Uralic origin. It is attractive to
identify the last of these with Tocharian A ske-, B skai- ‘to attempt’, which suggests
that other verbal suffixes may also go back to simple verbs. I am therefore inclined
to identify the Indo-European present stem formatives *-(e)i-, *-(e)m-, *-(e)s-, *-n-,
HITTITE hi-VERBS AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN PERFECT
11
*-t/dh- with the roots ‘to go’, ‘to take’, ‘to be’, ‘to lead’, ‘to put’, like *-sk- with the
root ‘to try’. A comparison of these elements with the Uralic verbal suffixes *-j-,
*-m-, *-n-, *-t- (cf. Collinder 1960: 272-281) remains a task for the future.
REFERENCES
Beekes, Robert S.P.
1985
The origins of the Indo-European nominal inflection (Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft).
Collinder, Björn
1960
Comparative grammar of the Uralic languages (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell).
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2003
Hittite and the Indo-European verb (Oxford: University Press).
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2006
Hittite pai-/pi- ‘to give’. Indogermanische Forschungen 111, 110-119.
2007
The Hittite inherited lexicon. Diss. Leiden.
Kølln, Herman
1966
Aspekt und Diathese im Slavischen. Scando-Slavica 12, 57-79.
1968
Zur Definition des Verbalaspekts. Scando-Slavica 14, 131-139.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1979
Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system. Lingua 49, 51-70.
1983
Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11, 307-324.
1987
The formation of the Old Prussian present tense. Baltistica 23/2, 104-111.
1989
Eight Indo-Uralic verbs? Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 50, 79-85.
2002
The Indo-Uralic verb. Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and literary
contacts (Maastricht: Shaker), 217-227.
Electronic edition: www.kortlandt.nl/publications
2007
Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language (Amsterdam:
Rodopi).
Kulikov, Leonid
2000
The Vedic type syáti revisited. Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik
(Wiesbaden: Reichert), 267-283.
2001
The Vedic -ya-presents. Diss. Leiden.
Oettinger, Norbert
1979
Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums (Nürnberg: Hans Carl).
Proeme, Henk
1980
On aspectual pairs in Polish. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 1, 299-314.
Renou, Louis
1925
Le type védique tudáti. Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. J. Vendryes par ses amis
et ses élèves (Paris: Champion), 309-316.
1932
A propos du subjonctif védique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 33,
5-30.
Sammallahti, Pekka
1988
Historical phonology of the Uralic languages. The Uralic languages: Description,
history and foreign influences (Leiden: Brill), 478-554.
Tschenkéli, Kita
1958
Einführung in die georgische Sprache I (Zürich: Amirani).